Sonal Talpada vs Veerbhan Singh
- Court
- Supreme Court
2026 INSC 620
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.10422 OF 2025)
SONAL TALPADA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
VEERBHAN SINGH … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The instant Appeal assails the judgment and
order dated 02.01.2025 (hereinafter referred to
as “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High
Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur (hereinafter
referred to as “High Court”), whereby the D.B.
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5127 of 2019
filed by the Respondent-husband (Divorce
Petitioner) herein stands allowed by setting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SOURAV PAL
aside the judgment and decree dated
Date: 2026.06.03
10:10:22 IST
Reason:
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 1 of 26
21.08.2019 passed by the Family Court at
Bharatpur, Rajasthan (hereinafter referred to as
“Family Court”), vide which petition seeking
divorce from the Appellant-wife filed by the
Respondent-husband was dismissed.
3. Brief facts are that the marriage of the
Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband
took place on 05.12.2007 as per the Hindu rites
in Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat. No child was born
out of their wedlock. At the time of marriage,
Appellant-wife was working as a Gynaecologist
in a government hospital in Nadiyad Khera,
Gujarat and Respondent-husband, also a
doctor, in State service in Rajasthan.
4. It appears that there were sociocultural
differences between the parties and according to
the Respondent-husband, cruelty was meted
out to him. Appellant-wife lived with him for
hardly two to three months in their matrimonial
home at Bharatpur, Rajasthan during their
matrimonial period of two years. Leading to the
Respondent-husband filing a divorce petition in
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 2 of 26
the year 2009 before the Family Court. The said
petition was filed under Section 13(1) (ia) of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred
to as “HMA”). The Family Court on 21.08.2018
dismissed the said divorce petition holding
therein that the Respondent-husband has failed
to prove the cruelty committed by the
Appellant-wife against him.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order passed by the Family Court
dismissing the divorce petition, the
Respondent-husband preferred an appeal
before the High Court. By the impugned
judgment and order, the High Court allowed the
said appeal. Hence, the Appellant-wife is before
this Court by way of the present appeal.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
Appellant-wife submits that she has never
abandoned the Respondent-husband and was
always ready and willing to lead a matrimonial
life with him. Respondent-husband cannot be
allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. It
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 3 of 26
was further contended that Respondent-
husband did not allow Appellant-wife to perform
her conjugal duties.
7. The learned counsel further submits that the
grounds for desertion and irretrievable
breakdown of marriage were not pleaded in the
Divorce Petition. In fact, it was Respondent-
husband who deserted the Appellant-wife.
Appellant-wife had left her government service
in Gujarat and started living in Bharatpur to
save her matrimonial life. Father of the
Respondent-husband had allowed the
Appellant-wife to work in Gujarat till
construction of Nursing home in Bharatpur.
However, construction of said nursing home
never commenced and therefore, Appellant-wife
continued working in Gujarat. Respondent-
husband has failed to produce any evidence to
establish that Appellant-wife has committed
any cruelty against him. Therefore, present
appeal be allowed and decree of Divorce granted
by the High Court vide the impugned judgment
in favour of Respondent-husband be set aside.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 4 of 26
8. Learned counsel for Appellant-wife has heavily
relied upon decisions of this Court in Darshan
1
Gupta v. Radhika Gupta , Vishnu Dutt
2
Sharma v. Manju Sharma and Samar Ghosh
3
v. Jaya Ghosh .
9. The present appeal is vehemently opposed by
the learned counsel of the Respondent-
husband. The learned counsel submits that the
Appellant-wife has never made any efforts to
save her matrimonial life. The parties are living
separately for more than 15 years and have co-
habited for merely 2-3 months in the span of 18
years. The Appellant-wife has denied
establishment of sexual relations to
Respondent-husband on several occasions.
Therefore, the Appellant-wife has committed
cruelty and has deserted the Respondent-
husband.
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent-husband
1
(2013) 9 SCC 1
2
(2009) 6 SCC 379
3
(2007) 4 SCC 511
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 5 of 26
further submits that the Appellant-wife has
failed to build any mutual trust, companionship
and shared experiences with the Respondent-
husband which led to irretrievable breakdown
of marriage. The parties have different lifestyle
and personal preferences. To overcome such
differences is beyond the control of both the
parties. There is no chance of reconciliation.
Parties were engaged in matrimonial litigation
from last many years. It is denied that
Appellant-wife has left her job in Gujarat. He
asserts that it is a fit case to dissolve the
marriage between the Appellant-wife and the
Respondent-husband on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage. Therefore,
the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondent-
husband has relied upon decisions of this Court
4
in Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli , Vikas
5
Kanaujia v. Sarita , Amutha v. A.R.
6
Subramanian , Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun
4
(2006) 4 SCC 558
5
(2025) 3 SCC 748
6
2024 SCC OnLine SC 3822 : 2024 INSC 1033
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 6 of 26
7
Sreenivasan and Savitri Pandey v. Prem
8
Chandra Pandey .
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties at length and with their
assistance have gone through the relevant
pleadings and evidence lead by the parties
before the Courts below. It is pertinent to
mention, that the Appellant-wife has, right from
the stage of trial till this Court, rigidly
maintained her stand that she does not want to
dissolve the marriage and wants to continue her
matrimonial life with the Respondent-husband.
No other civil or criminal proceedings were
instituted by either party against each other.
13. The parties have been living separately for about
fifteen (15) years and there is no child from the
wedlock. Despite repeated efforts by Courts,
there has been no reconciliation between the
parties. At the stage of admission of appeal, this
Court had referred the parties to mediation vide
order dated 23.05.2025. However, mediation
7
(2023) 14 SCC 231
8
(2002) 2 SCC 73
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 7 of 26
was unsuccessful which is evident from the
Mediation report dated 27.11.2025. No efforts
have been made since then, by either of the
parties, to reconcile their matrimonial
differences.
14. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the
High Court granted the divorce in favour of
Respondent-husband on the following grounds:
a) Appellant-wife had insulted the
Respondent-husband before a shopkeeper
while on their visit to Taj Mahal;
b) Cruelty was committed by the Appellant-
wife against the Respondent-husband as
she denied sexual relations on several
occasions;
c) Desertion due to long absence from
matrimonial home; and
d) Parties were living separately since 15
years.
15. Adverting to findings recorded by the High
Court, this Court is called to adjudicate upon
whether the Respondent-husband was
subjected to ‘cruelty’ within the meaning of law,
and whether the marital bond between the
parties has ruptured to such an extent that the
marriage has broken down irretrievably,
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 8 of 26
rendering any reconciliation impossible.
16. Though with respect to ‘cruelty’ no uniform
standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet
this Court in Samar Ghosh (supra) deemed it
appropriate to enumerate some instances of
human behaviour which may be relevant in
dealing with the cases of ‘mental cruelty’:
“Para 101………(xii) Unilateral decision of
refusal to have intercourse for considerable
period without there being any physical
incapacity or valid reason may amount to
mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of
either husband or wife after marriage not to
have child from the marriage may amount to
cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long
period of continuous separation, it may fairly
be concluded that the matrimonial bond is
beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction
though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to
sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not
serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary,
it shows scant regard for the feelings and
emotions of the parties. In such like situations,
it may lead to mental cruelty.” ( emphasis
supplied )
17. Reverting to facts of the present case, with
regards to contention that the Appellant-wife
had insulted the Respondent-husband before
the shopkeeper, the Family Court has correctly
assessed that the Respondent-husband himself
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 9 of 26
admitted that Taj Mahal was closed on that day
so, there was no requirement of hiring a drunk
guide. There is nothing wrong in wife asking for
a Teddy bear.
18. However, on the question of cruelty from the
evidence of the Respondent-husband it also,
comes out that even during that short period of
cohabitation the Appellate-wife used to sleep
early in night, lock her room from inside and
never open the door on knocking. The
Respondent-husband used to sleep in other
separate room. The Appellant-wife has not
denied the fact that they used to sleep in
different rooms. The acceptance of the ground
of cruelty for grant of divorce is, thus, correct.
19. As held in the case of Samar Ghosh (supra) and
other catena of judgments by this Court, denial
of conjugal rights including persistent refusal of
sexual intercourse without a reasonable cause
constitutes mental cruelty and is a valid ground
for divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the HMA.
The courts in India have repeatedly established
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 10 of 26
that withholding sexual intimacy inflicts severe
emotional distress and undermines the bedrock
of marriage. Therefore, the conclusion of the
High Court is sustained. The decree of divorce
as granted by allowing the appeal of the
Respondent-husband is upheld.
20. As regarding the ground of desertion, the Family
Court has pointed out that the father of
Respondent-husband had admitted during his
cross-examination that he had asked father of
Appellant-wife that she can continue to work in
Nadiyad Khera, Gujarat till a nursing home was
constructed in Bharatpur, Rajasthan. Merely
because father-in-law had said so would not in
itself means a licence for not joining and
fulfilling the matrimonial obligations which
arise upon the parties having entered into the
relationship of husband and wife. Seeing when
the things were not moving with regards to the
construction of the nursing home, steps need to
have been taken by the parties to cohabitate.
Nothing has come on record indicating any
effort on the part of the Appellant-wife or even
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 11 of 26
the Respondent-husband in this direction.
21. While the statutory ground of desertion may not
have been pleaded but matrimonial disputes are
seldom confined to isolated legal labels. The
Court is also required to examine the overall
conduct of the parties and the manner in which
they have discharged their matrimonial
obligations. It is from this broader perspective
issue of cruelty deserves further consideration.
22. Marriage, in its legal and constitutional
dimension, can never be reduced to a mere
contractual intersection of individual rights, nor
can it be viewed strictly through the narrow lens
of a petition for conjugal rights. It is a deeply
personal and social partnership built on mutual
respect, shared expectations and equal
responsibility. When two parties enter into
matrimony, they weave a tapestry of
interdependence that demands a continuous
balancing of interests. Conjugal rights do not
exist in a vacuum; they are the structural
counterparts to conjugal duties. To demand the
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 12 of 26
fulfilment of the former while wilfully
abandoning the sanctity of the latter is to
undermine the very essence of the institution.
Matrimony, therefore, is not a one-sided right to
be enforced, but a shared covenant of emotional
support, fidelity, responsibility and care, where
the rights of one are always tied to the duties
they owe to the other. Persistent withdrawal
from the foundational aspects of marriage may
have legal consequences while evaluating
allegations of mental cruelty.
23. From the conduct of parties, it is clear that even
during the short period of cohabitation they
failed to perform their conjugal responsibilities.
The parties have strongly held views with regard
to the approach towards matrimonial life and
they have refused to accommodate each other
for a long period of time. As held in the case of
9
Nayan Bhowmick v. Aparna Chakraborty ,
this Court is of the view that in matrimonial
matters involving two individuals, it is not for
the society or for the Court to sit in judgment
9
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2798 : 2025 INSC 1436
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 13 of 26
over which spouse’s approach is correct or not.
It is their strongly held views and their refusal
to accommodate each other that amounts to
cruelty to one another.
24. This Court in multitude of cases, has held that
in situations where parties have been living
separately for a considerable time without any
hope for reconciliation amounts to cruelty to
both the parties.
25. In the light of the above, it can be said that the
High Court has rightly assessed that where
parties have been living separately for several
years and at this stage asking them to live
together after a prolonged duration would
amount to cruelty to both the parties and
divorce can be granted on this ground as
provided under section 13 (1)(ia) of HMA. It may
be added here that desertion as a ground
requires an initial period as mentioned under
the statute but if such desertion continues for a
long period of time without any effort on the part
of the parties to restore cohabitation would itself
be a ground to be considered by the Appellate
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 14 of 26
Court. This we say in the light of the fact that
human relations are dynamic and once the
initial mandate under the statute stands
satisfied, continuation thereof during the
litigation would aggravate the said agony which
could be confirmational in substantiating the
basis and pleaded ground for divorce. The same
can be taken into consideration for formation of
an opinion to accept the prayer by the Appellate
Court. Appeal is the continuation of a suit and
therefore, the Appellate Court would be entitled
and justified to consider the conduct of the
parties during the pendency of litigation. The
same can also be looked into to support or reject
an opinion on the ground in question.
26. An Appellate Court, while carefully ensuring
that a party does not profit from their own
manifest wrong or unilateral desertion, may
legitimately treat a prolonged period of
separation as an indicator of mental cruelty
within the meaning of Section 13(1)(ia) of the
HMA. The Appellate Court is not precluded from
examining whether continuous separation over
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 15 of 26
a substantial period, coupled with absence of
any genuine effort at reconciliation, complete
cessation of cohabitation and emotional
alienation has resulted in mental cruelty.
Subsequent events occurring during pendency
of proceedings may legitimately be taken into
consideration while undertaking such
assessment. In such circumstances, the
confirmation of a decree of divorce by an
Appellate Court is not an invocation of
extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, but a
lawful and realistic application of the statutory
ground of cruelty to the facts of the case.
27. A significant aspect of this case is the prolonged
physical separation spanning more than a
decade and a half. While the statutory ground
of 'desertion' under Section 13(1)(ib) of the HMA
has not been formally pleaded by the
Respondent-husband however, the element of
desertion can be viewed neutrally through an
objective lens where spouses choose
independent professional and geographical
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 16 of 26
paths and remain completely estranged without
any reciprocal effort to bridge the distance.
28. In such circumstances, desertion ceases to be
merely a matter of individual malice or
unilateral fault rather it assumes the character
of a shared, de facto abandonment of the
matrimonial covenant. The parties have
objectively deserted the matrimonial framework
itself. The intentional maintenance of distinct
lifestyles, separate domiciles, and the total
cessation of marital interaction over fifteen
years establishes a de facto abandonment of the
marital covenant by both sides.
29. In any event, this Court in exercise of power to
do “complete justice” under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution of India has the discretion to
dissolve the marriage on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown.
30. In present case, it is not disputed that since
more than last 15 years both the Appellant-wife
and the Respondent-husband are residing
separately. It also appears that all efforts to
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 17 of 26
continue the marriage have failed and there is
no possibility of re-union because of the
strained relations between the parties. Thus, it
is apparent that marriage between the
Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband
has also, broken down irretrievably.
31. In the case of Vikas Kanaujia (supra), where
the husband and wife lived together for total 43
days and period for separation was more than
22 years, this Court held that:
“17. The husband and wife have lived together
on their own will for hardly 23 days since
marriage. They further lived together for 20
more days from 15.06.2005 to 05.07.2015 as
Sessions Court passed order for conciliation.
Thus, in total the parties have not lived
together for more than 43 days. The
Respondent left her matrimonial house within
the first month of marriage. The period of
separation has been more than 22 years. The
possibility of parties living together is further
reduced as parties are in their early 50s now
and have built independent lives. Further, the
parties have fought multiple legal battles
against each other since 2002 itself with six
cases filed against each other, including
criminal cases. The Respondent had filed a
criminal case against the Appellant and his
family members where they were arrested
although subsequently discharged and
acquitted.
18. Although the respondent claims that she is
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 18 of 26
willing to live with the Appellant believing in
the sanctity of marriage, her actions are not in
consonance with her claim. In this long period
of 22 years, there was no one to stop her from
living together with the Appellant. The
mediation and conciliation proceedings have
failed. The Appellant on the other hand states
that the claim of willingness to live together is
falsely projected claim before the Court of law
only to mislead the Court, delay the
proceedings and harass the appellant.
19. Thus, the effective cumulation of actions of
both the parties in past 22 years since
marriage has resulted in demolition of their
matrimonial bond beyond repair. The marriage
has ceased to exist both in substance and in
reality. The relation has even taken a sour
taste as the families of parties have also
developed rivalries. The act of Respondent to
lodge a missing complaint against Appellant
after the delivery of impugned order is also
indicative of the bitter relation between the
parties. Considering the long separation period
of 22 years, lack of existence of marriage
between the parties and the sour relations
developed due to continuous legal battles, we
deem this case to be fit for exercise of
extraordinary powers conferred under Article
142 of the Constitution.
20. In Rajib Kumar Roy vs Sushmita Saha ,
this Court exercised the power conferred under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India by
dissolving the marriage between parties who
were living separately for 12 years. Paragraph
Nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the judgement are
reproduced hereunder:
‘8. Continued bitterness, dead emotions
and long separation, in the given facts and
circumstances of a case, can be construed
as a case of ‘irretrievable breakdown of
marriage’, which is also a facet of ‘cruelty’.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 19 of 26
In Rakesh Raman v. Kavita , 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 497, this is precisely what was
held, that though in a given case cruelty as
a fault, may not be attributable to one party
alone and hence despite irretrievable
breakdown of marriage keeping the parties
together amounts to cruelty on both sides.
Which is precisely the case at hand.
9.Whatever may be the justification for the
two living separately, with so much of time
gone by, any marital love or affection,
which may have been between the parties,
seems to have dried up. This is a classic
case of irretrievable breakdown of
marriage. In view of the Constitution Bench
Judgment of this court in Shilpa Sailesh
v. Varun Sreenivasan , 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 544 which has held that in such cases
where there is irretrievable breakdown of
marriage then dissolution of marriage is the
only solution and this Court can grant a
decree of divorce in exercise of its power
under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India.
10.We therefore declare the marriage to
have broken down irretrievably and
therefore in exercise of our jurisdiction
under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India we are of the considered opinion that
this being a case of irretrievable
breakdown of marriage must now be
dissolved by grant of decree of divorce.’ ”
( emphasis supplied )
32. In the case of Shilpa Shailesh (supra), while
considering the cases of Darshan Gupta
(supra) and Vishnu Dutt Sharma (supra) as
relied upon by the Appellant-wife, the
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 20 of 26
Constitution Bench clarified that this Court, in
exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the
Constitution of India, has the discretion to
dissolve the marriage on the ground of its
irretrievable breakdown. This discretionary
power is to be exercised to do ‘complete justice’
to the parties, wherein this Court is satisfied
that the facts established show that the
marriage has completely failed and there is no
possibility that the parties will cohabit together,
and continuation of the formal legal relationship
is unjustified. The Court, as a court of equity, is
required to also balance the circumstances and
the background in which the party opposing the
dissolution is placed. Further, it was held that:
“62. Having said so, we wish to clearly state
that grant of divorce on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage by this
Court is not a matter of right, but a discretion
which is to be exercised with great care and
caution, keeping in mind several factors
ensuring that “complete justice” is done to both
parties. It is obvious that this Court should be
fully convinced and satisfied that the marriage
is totally unworkable, emotionally dead and
beyond salvation and, therefore, dissolution of
marriage is the right solution and the only way
forward.
63. That the marriage has irretrievably broken
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 21 of 26
down is to be factually determined and firmly
established. For this, several factors are to be
considered such as the period of time the
parties had cohabited after marriage; when the
parties had last cohabited; the nature of
allegations made by the parties against each
other and their family members; the orders
passed in the legal proceedings from time to
time, cumulative impact on the personal
relationship; whether, and how many attempts
were made to settle the disputes by
intervention of the court or through mediation,
and when the last attempt was made, etc. The
period of separation should be sufficiently long,
and anything above six years or more will be a
relevant factor. But these facts have to be
evaluated keeping in view the economic and
social status of the parties, including their
educational qualifications, whether the parties
have any children, their age, educational
qualification, and whether the other spouse
and children are dependent, in which event
how and in what manner the party seeking
divorce intends to take care and provide for the
spouse or the children. Question of custody
and welfare of minor children, provision for fair
and adequate alimony for the wife, and
economic rights of the children and other
pending matters, if any, are relevant
considerations. We would not like to codify the
factors so as to curtail exercise of jurisdiction
under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India,
which is situation specific. Some of the factors
mentioned can be taken as illustrative, and
emphasis
worthy of consideration.” (
supplied )
33. In the similar set of facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court in the case of R. Srinivas
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 22 of 26
10
Kumar v. R. Shametha had directed to
dissolve the marriage on the ground of
irretrievable breakdown of marriage as parties
were living separately for more than 22 years, in
exercise of powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India.
34. This Court, in a series of judgments, has
exercised its inherent powers under Article 142
of the Constitution of India for dissolution of a
marriage where the Court finds that the
marriage is totally unworkable, emotionally
dead, beyond salvage and has broken down
irretrievably, even if the facts of the case do not
provide a ground in law on which the divorce
could be granted. In the present case,
admittedly, the Appellant-wife and the
Respondent-husband have been living
separately for more than 15 years, all efforts to
reconcile them have failed and therefore, it will
not be possible for the parties to live together.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that
this is a fit case to exercise the powers under
10
(2019) 9 SCC 409
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 23 of 26
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and to
dissolve the marriage between the parties.
35. This Court is conscious of the view that
approach of the Courts should be to preserve
the sanctity of marriage and the Court should
be reluctant to dissolve the marriage at the mere
asking of one of the parties. But, in the present
case, the parties have lived separately for far too
long a period of time and there is no sanctity left
in the marriage. Although plea had been taken
that the Appellant-wife had left her job in
Gujarat and started residing in Bharatpur,
Rajasthan but no evidence has come on record
to substantiate the same. Rather the evidence
on record is to the contrary and it is not
disputed that she still continues with her job in
Gujarat. There appears to be no intention on her
part to join company of the husband as actions
speak more than the dry words. Grant of divorce
in the present proceedings would not have a
devastating effect on any third party, as there
are no children from the wedlock. Both the wife
and husband are doctors and are in government
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 24 of 26
service in State of Gujarat and Rajasthan
respectively, therefore, financially well off and
independent.
36. This Court is also of the view that prolonged
pendency of matrimonial litigation only leads to
perpetuity of marriage on paper. It is in the best
interest of parties and the society if ties are
severed between parties in cases where
litigation has been pending for a considerably
long period of time. Prolongation of a
matrimonial relationship would further lead not
only to escalation of frustration in a dead
relationship, which has already decayed and is
decomposing day by day creating foul
sociological, psychological and mental
hollowness in life resulting in denial of a free
and independent environment to flourish which
each human strives in body and soul.
Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that
such matrimonial litigation pending in Court
needs to be put to end by granting effective
release to the parties from a stale and frozen
relationship.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 25 of 26
37. In the light of what has been stated above, in
our considered view, this would be a fit case
where the relationship of marriage should come
to an end for which exercise of powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India would be
essential to do complete justice. Accordingly,
the marriage between the Appellant-wife and
the Respondent-husband deserves to be
dissolved in exercise of powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India.
38. As a consequence of the above, the present
appeal stands dismissed.
39. There shall be no order as to cost.
40. Pending application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 02, 2026.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.10422/2025 Page 26 of 26